Motor vehicle fleets are typically formed of special purpose vehicles such as taxis, buses and sales/service vehicles, as well as product delivery/shipping vehicles such as medium and heavy duty trucks, to name a few. Such fleet vehicles may or may not have different drivers periodically assigned thereto, and in any case the driving skills of fleet drivers typically vary widely. Thus, while some drivers operate their fleet vehicles in a manner that is consistent with fleet vehicle operating goals, others do not. Fleet owners and/or operators have thus devised numerous techniques and systems to control and encourage proper operation of the fleet vehicles.
An example of one known approach for encouraging such proper operation of a fleet vehicle involves utilizing a trip recorder which is operable to collect vehicle and engine operating conditions during vehicle operation. The vehicle and engine operating data is recorded onto suitable media during vehicle operation, and is thereafter removed from the vehicle and downloaded by suitable means. A trip report is typically generated from the downloaded data which is reviewed by the fleet owner and/or manager. In cases where the trip report indicates that the driver's performance meets or exceeds certain operating goals, such as preestablished fleet fuel economy goals, the driver becomes eligible for some type performance award.
While the foregoing approach has been used in the past with some success, it has several drawbacks associated therewith. For example, the driver's award is typically received days and often weeks after the driving performance. This delay tends to diminish the importance of proper vehicle operation to many drivers. Moreover, the awards are typically recognition type awards or cash/goods which do not relate directly to the operation of the vehicle. Further, this approach serves only to reward drivers that operate the fleet vehicles in accordance with certain fleet operating goals, and does not penalize driving performance that is inconsistent with such goals.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,394,136 to Lammers et al. addresses the first of the foregoing drawbacks by disclosing a satellite communication system operable to immediately notify and reward a driver that is operating a vehicle in accordance with predetermined vehicle operating goals. However, such a system does not address either of the remaining example drawbacks discussed above.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,477,827 to Weisman, II et al. attempts to address the first two of the drawbacks discussed above by disclosing a control system which has an ultimate goal of maximizing fuel economy. The system is operable to increase the vehicle speed available to the driver as fuel economy increases, wherein the upper limit on the allowable vehicle speed is increased proportionally to an amount that a threshold fuel economy is exceeded. While such an increase in fuel economy is disclosed as possibly being the result of minimization of idle time, selection of optimum transmission gears, maintaining a steady throttle or reducing the use of engine-driven accessory loads, "fuel economy" is measured in the Weisman et al. system either in accordance with a trip average MPG or a filtered MPG value utilizing a lag calculation.
While the Weisman et al. system goes further in addressing the driver reward system drawbacks discussed hereinabove, it has its own drawbacks associated therewith. For example, the Weisman et al. system discloses only adding vehicle speed to reward fuel economic vehicle operation, and does not address any type of penalization approach for deterring vehicle operation resulting in poor fuel economy. Moreover, the Weisman et al. "fuel economy" calculations are quite limited in that they are based solely on MPG calculations. Further, the Weisman et al. system discloses adding vehicle speed only and contains no mention of alternatively adding to, or increasing, a different engine performance parameter.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,914,597 to Moncelle et al. addresses some of the drawbacks discussed hereinabove in that it discloses a system for adjusting engine output power based on the operational status of a vehicle cruise control system. Specifically, Moncelle et al. discloses operating the engine in accordance with a first set of engine output torque curves when cruise control is not engaged, and in accordance with a second set of higher engine output torque curves when cruise control is engaged. However, while the Moncelle et al. system addresses some of the drawbacks associated with prior art systems as discussed hereinabove, this system also has shortcomings associated therewith. For example, the level of engine output power is based solely on the operational status of the cruise control system and does not take into account any other engine and/or vehicle operating parameter that may affect vehicle fuel economy. Moreover, this system, as with all other prior art systems discussed above, fails to provide the fleet owner/manager with programming flexibility to set limits for the vehicle operating parameters and/or driver rewards, choose among one or more vehicle operating parameters on which a driver reward/penalty is based, or choose between a number of possible engine and/or vehicle operation-based performance rewards or penalties.
What is therefore needed is a flexible system for controlling engine performance according to driver behavior. Such a system should preferably reward compliance with predefined vehicle operational goals and penalize noncompliance therewith, and should further preferably provide the fleet owner/manager with maximum flexibility in programming parameters and parameter values associated with such a system.